Can a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure to enforce a settlement agreement be denied?

In another recent case Gorman v. Holte (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 984, 211 Cal.Rptr. 34, the parties stipulated to the terms of the settlement on the record in open court. (Id., at p. 987, 211 Cal.Rptr. 34.) The court found that a valid settlement had thus been accomplished, noting that, "[o]ral agreements to compromise and settle lawsuits reached at judicially supervised settlement conferences are enforceable in a number of ways, including a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6...." (Id., at p. 989, 211 Cal.Rptr. 34, italics added.)

In Corkland v. Boscoe, supra, 156 Cal.App.3d at page 994, 203 Cal.Rptr. 356, the court found that the section is applicable "not only to judicially supervised settlement conferences, but to stipulations of settlement in writing or orally before the court in pending litigation." The court did not expand on this description of the applicability of the section, but did discuss several cases decided prior to the enactment of this statute which generally held that the [176 Cal.App.3d 1173] former, nonstatutory motion to enforce a settlement agreement must be treated as a motion for summary judgment, to be denied where there is a disputed issue of material fact.

The Corkland court noted the reluctance of the earlier courts to grant judgment where the factual settings involved out-of-court negotiations, enforcement by a judge other than the one who presided over the settlement conference, or conditional settlements. It reiterated the language of its earlier decision in Gopal v. Yoshikawa (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 128, 132, 195 Cal.Rptr. 36, which noted that "[t]he themes common to these criticisms of the enforcement procedures concern the extent of judicial supervision and disputes over whether an agreement was reached or, if so, its terms."

In Gopal v. Yoshikawa, supra, 147 Cal.App.3d at page 133, 195 Cal.Rptr. 36, the reviewing court concluded that the trial court properly enforced the agreement of the parties where the entire matter was conducted on the record, and the terms of the settlement were explicitly defined before the trial judge in the presence of the parties and their attorneys, and both parties personally advised the court of their concurrence in the settlement.